In the past, rural prosperity has been mainly associated with the modernisation of agriculture and the economic benefits that appear to originate from it. Today we know that this simple logic is not correct in several respects. Regionally, structural changes to farms and the modernisation of a few farms have not always contributed to prosperous rural areas. At the level of farm households, we can see that other non-economic aspects such as a minimum level of autonomy, social recognition and social and environmental well-being all play rather significant roles. In this paper, we present an empirically grounded analysis of these questions based on in-depth case studies in seven countries (Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Israel, Germany and Denmark). We discuss rural actors understanding of rural prosperity in different countries and contexts, the strategies used to improve prosperity and well-being, and how these strategies can be enabled and fostered. The empirical evidence presented indicates that prosperity in rural contexts is increasingly understood as being multi-dimensional and that people seek to balance economic parameters with human, social and environmental well-being.@en

This paper explores the relations between agricultural modernization and sustainable agriculture. The point of departure is the observable decrease in the sustainability and social–ecological resilience of agricultural and food systems. We ask where, precisely, the notions of agricultural modernization and agricultural sustainability contradict each other. In more concrete terms we ask what forms of modernization makes agriculture more (or less) sustainable. Our literature review shows that while the term ‘sustainable agriculture’, has been extensively debated, the term ‘agricultural modernization’, while carrying a positive and forward-looking connotation, remains poorly defined. To address this gap, we draw on evidence from real-life cases in fourteen countries in an attempt to interpret how the two concepts are perceived in very different contexts. These case studies show that different understandings of modern and sustainable agriculture coexist and that agricultural development follows diverse pathways. We conclude that the growing demands for an agricultural and food system that is more resilient, equitable and inclusive can be met by providing more support for the many divergent trajectories of agricultural modernization that practitioners are actually pursuing: trajectories that are often more attuned to the imperatives of ecology and to changing socio–economic preferences than the classical modernization trajectory.@en

The limited resilience of agricultural and food systems, and of rural communities, has become an important concern in rural and agricultural policy. However, while the term has been heavily theorised and discussed, particularly in the natural and environmental sciences, it is sufficiently ambiguous to support divergent and even contradictory policy goals and farmers' strategies. This paper focuses on the more encompassing notion of social-ecological resilience and contends that among the causes of this divergence are the disparate spatial and temporal scales used to assess and plan enhancing resilience. Based on empirical evidence, we show that strategies that may increase farmers' abilities to persist in a difficult economic environment may undermine the resilience of the wider region, while decisions that enhance farmers' resilience in the short term may lock them onto a path that weakens their future resilience. Using case studies from 14 different countries across Europe and beyond, we address two main questions. Firstly, how the notion of resilience is being operationalised at a farm or regional level. That is to say, what are the different strategies that farmers, rural residents and other decision-makers in rural areas are using to enhance resilience? Secondly, we look at how the outcomes of implementing these strategies vary according to spatial and temporal factors.@en

The widespread transformations in farming practices during recent decades across many parts of Europe - increased capital intensity, scale enlargement, specialization, intensification and mechanization have been accompanied by a quite dramatic shift towards more standardized agricultural information and knowledge. Previous research reveals that transition towards more sustainable agriculture requires a new knowledge base, with new content and forms of knowledge and new processes of learning. In this paper, we explore the relevance of informal farmer knowledge and learning practices in constructing alternative pathways in sustainable agriculture and strengthening agricultural resilience. It is based on 11 case studies carried out within the international RETHINK research programme. The cases reveal the diversity of knowledge sources and learning forms that farmers use and the particular role of farmers' experience-based knowledge. Farmers greatly value local experiential knowledge as they see it as having practical, personal and local relevance. Given the limitations of more standardized information and knowledge, and the urgent need for a transition towards more sustainable and resource-efficient practices, we argue that the potential of local farmer knowledge is not being optimally used and that a better integration of various forms of knowledge is needed. We identify several ways in which different kinds of knowledge can be integrated. For the individual farmer this can be done by synthesising knowledge from different sources. It can also be done through farmer networking - whether or not facilitated by formal agricultural knowledge institutions, through collaboration between farmers and researchers as knowledge co-generators, and through multi-actor knowledge networks that bring together participants from various fields. We conclude that the dynamic contexts, complexity and the local specificity of the current challenges facing agriculture and the many roles it is being asked to fulfil require more inclusive, flexible modes of governing the generation, integration and sharing of knowledge. All stakeholders, including farmers, need to be recognised as equal co-authors of knowledge generation, and all kinds of knowledge, both formal and informal, need be brought together in innovation processes. Knowledge networking and multi-actor knowledge networks that facilitate knowledge exchanges, joint learning and the generation of new more integrated solutions, are crucial if agriculture is to become sustainable and resilient.@en